UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[nmc]

The usual suspects have a higher proportion of their revenue derived from match day- Arsenal, Liverpool, United, Chelsea - than from other sources, when compared to other sources/clubs.
I’m sure if matches are behind closed doors, special dispensation on failing FFP will be swiftly wafted through to ensure the cartel clubs can continue putting distance between themselves and the rest.

I guess our income will be flat because we don’t sell many sheets and those we do our owner buys - so I assume he’ll continue to buy a few thousand for each game and not attend.

 

[Franny's toilet roll]

What a brilliant piece of writing. Love to hear the usual suspects like delaney and Harris’ opinion of this article, how can you not agree with it?

Quite, a real scribe, one of the best, who really gives a shit what the click bait twins think?They're one cell short of being classed an Amoeba

 

[richards30]

No. There is just other clubs that do not need to manipulate... Especially not Bayern is nowhere near having problems keeping the FFP rules...
You just cannot compare minority owners without ruling power that are stock corporations with your situation.

When it is about Adidas, Audi and Allianz... - this companies aren't only Bayern sponsors but sponsor other top European clubs, too, and the contracts with Bayern aren't better than the others.

but you are paying yourself, that the argument!! Also what city seem to have been charged with.

 

[squirtyflower]

If you apply the same rules to sport as business then every single sports rule book is getting ripped up and replaced.

Didn’t take you long to start spouting idiocy.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

We won’t challenge the basis of ffp, not as part of this and I doubt at all - we’re a beneficiary of it now ultimately.

Personally, without my what’s purely best for city hat on, what I’d have liked to have seen Uefa do is say “the disparity in wealth is the main cause of teams overspending in an effort to try and catch up with you” to the bigger clubs and gone for a far greater redistribution of prize money right down through domestic leagues. Id also have not just put a limit on losses but on profits too, ensuring all owners were enforced to invest the majority straight back into the club. Couple that with a restriction on debt and an increase in losses allowed as long as it was covered in year by the owner, that would have got them shedloads of support, reduced the disparity and stopped plenty of clubs overspending.

The reinvestment part of your post is a very important point as we all know 99% of owners would just pocket the cash otherwise.

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

Just thinking, with leagues suspended and game being played behind closed doors a lot of clubs are going to be losing money, how will this impact FFP position of clubs.

saw something today which said the rags match day revenue which I assume includes pies, pints etc is around 18% of their total revenue whereas for someone like Bournemouth it is only around 5%

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Other sports have spending caps or spending limits but in all cases these limits are the same for all participants. FFP differs from this because it ties spending to income - but limits equity investment- so teams have different spending limits. At a domestic level any team with regular CL football is in such a privileged position that other teams can simply never catch up - even if their owner wants to invest. FFP is wholly at odds with a football pyramid. I’d argue FFP is not a financial regulation to govern the wellbeing of the game. It’s clearly an instrument to protect a cartel - hence why it is so very different from anything introduced in other sports. If UEFA wanted to protect clubs it could simply have introduced a wage cap or set a ceiling on the debt to income ratio - but we all know why they didn’t do that- and that’s why FFP is probably not consistent with competition law - it’s specifically designed to limit not encourage competition.

In the NFL the highest earning team is the Dallas Cowboys, with revenue of $950m last year. The next is the Patriots with about $600m. In the PL that world lead to total dominance yet the Cowboys really haven't been that successful in recent years.

The bottom earning team have revenues of around $350m, which is just 60% of the Patriots revenue. The NFL has a number of ways of ensuring relative competitiveness but tying spending to revenue isn't I one of them or even the only one. If FFP was applied to the NFL, the Cowboys would win the Superbowl season after season.

 

[Ban-jani]

No. There is just other clubs that do not need to manipulate... Especially not Bayern is nowhere near having problems keeping the FFP rules...
You just cannot compare minority owners without ruling power that are stock corporations with your situation.

When it is about Adidas, Audi and Allianz... - this companies aren't only Bayern sponsors but sponsor other top European clubs, too, and the contracts with Bayern aren't better than the others.

Fucking lol.

You, and the rest of the G14 ****s, wrote the fucking rules so why would you?

Even presuming City are guilty, which they may not be, the whole system is designed to keep Bayern and Madrid and Barcelona and Utd and Liverpool at the top and stifle the chances of others catching.

They love an Ajax, let them have a half decent season then utter pillage their best players and fuck them back off again.

Anyone who wants to consistently challenge can fuck off.

We’ve seen how morally bankrupt and corrupt those in your boardroom are.

In the end you, Utd, Liverpool, Madrid, Barcelona etc. will be shown as the closed shop corrupt ****s you all are.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Fucking lol.

You, and the rest of the G14 ****s, wrote the fucking rules so why would you?

Even presuming City are guilty, which they may not be, the whole system is designed to keep Bayern and Madrid and Barcelona and Utd and Liverpool at the top and stifle the chances of others catching.

They love an Ajax, let them have a half decent season then utter pillage their best players and fuck them back off again.

Anyone who wants to consistently challenge can fuck off.

We’ve seen how morally bankrupt and corrupt those in your boardroom are.

In the end you, Utd, Liverpool, Madrid, Barcelona etc. will be shown as the closed shop corrupt ****s you all are.

If City ever take the bastards to court this will surely get a 'public' airing! I haven't one gramme of knowledge about Swiss courts but it could well be a SuperPopcorn Day!

These teams have never bothered too much with morality. Just look at what Harry Gregg had to say about the treatment of the surviving MANUre players after Munich, and as for 'fair play' it's a hypocrites' charter!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

In the NFL the highest earning team is the Dallas Cowboys, with revenue of $950m last year. The next is the Patriots with about $600m. In the PL that world lead to total dominance yet the Cowboys really haven't been that successful in recent years.

The bottom earning team have revenues of around $350m, which is just 60% of the Patriots revenue. The NFL has a number of ways of ensuring relative competitiveness but tying spending to revenue isn't I one of them or even the only one. If FFP was applied to the NFL, the Cowboys would win the Superbowl season after season.

Salary cap makes a huge difference in NFL, together with the draft in a different way. Can only spend about $200M on salaries, which neutralises a lot of the income difference.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

A couple of very well made points however you are coming at this soley from the point of view of Man City. In the hypothetical scenario where Man City are challenging FFP in Switzerland or Brussels or wherever UEFA will say they legislate for hundreds of clubs across Europe, just because Man City are the exemption to the rule it doesn't mean the rule should be changed. They will say that legislation has worked and produce mountains of evidence to prove their point. Man City themselves are evidence of a club competing right at the very top of the game while operating within the FFP parameters for the last few years.

Based on where City are now I don't see them going down that route, I think it will end at CAS win lose or draw.

What City would be showing is that FFP cannot achieve its declared aims. It is a ludicrous Alice in Wonderland style fantasy to suggest that the financial stability of a club can be improved by outlawing certain revenue streams and telling clubs that it isn't allowed some of its revenues from deals with non-related related parties. This is to take us into the realms of a curious dream world that tells us financially stable, very wealthy clubs are actually unstable because UEFA says so! Other clubs, whose debt is increasing every year, are models of financial prudence because UEFA decrees it. The FFP picture is a fiction and it has nothing to do with financial stability. If it aims at financial stability why is it called financial fair play? Why do UEFA raise no questions about Bayern's or Juve's genuinely related sponsorship deals worth far more than any we have? Why did Platini only ever talk about City's spending? Why did he admit to Martin Samuel that he gave in to constant pressure from the G 14 to introduce limits on owner investment because they couldn't compete with Abramovitch or Sheikh Mansour? FFP was introduced to protect the G 14 from competition. UEFA introduced FFP to benefit a handful of clubs not "the game" and it cannot discriminate against City in anyone's interests. "We have our rights."

 

[JGL07]

And the owner went on to become the tory Lord Mayor of Liverpool, just to emphasise the working class origins of that club!

That’s interesting. The Tory party in Liverpool at the time was associated with the ‘Protestant ascendancy’. This was like their allied Parties, the Unionists in Glasgow and the Ulster Unionists in Belfast. The campaign colours of the Liverpool Conservatives was Orange right through to the 1970s.

 

[Gordyola]

sorry that's never going to happen ? because the rules they setup are legally binding by signing up to play in their competition ?
manchester city have agreed to the rules and have to apply by them ? and if city are thinking they (uefa) moved the goalpost without city knowing and flagging them up now ? then sorry uefa have won the case and we can kiss goodbye to champions league football for 2 years and the CAS can help in reducing the punishment and that's city the best hope

uefa knew they had us because the rest are playing at it and doing the same thing its bent ? only they are sat on the board and grease the greedy hands of uefa and city refuse to play ball, the only way this will pan out city way is the whistle needs to be blown or city find some dirt on uefa ? its a dog eat dog world and its bigger than anybody really thinks

city had a golden chance to take one of them down when they found liverpool was tapping into our accounts ? only city settled out of court ???? this is going to cost manchester city big time and having one of the major players by the balls and let them off was a big mistake, again what the fuck are city doing ? you have one of the biggest clubs cheating and do nothing ? it makes me sick and mad and city are soft or looking soft and its us being called cheats

To have access to a considerable amount of income City had to agree to the UEFA contract to compete in a competition. The competition controlled by a commercial organisation that competes for income, sponsors, with other sporting entireties, including those who are entrants into their competitions. Part of the rules of entry restrict those entrants from maximising income from their existing sponsors.

"legally binding by signing up to play in their competition"

Contracts are only as good as the last challenge in court, every contract is subject to Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the UK Competition and Markets Authority https://assets.publishing.service.g...98211/CMA37_c_con_Unfair_terms_what_s_new.pdf

 

[Gordyola]

Working in the Media team at City must be the easiest job in the world because every fucker can do it brilliantly and most could do it better than the professionals we employ.

Let's do it your way. Ban everyone who writes anything we don't like. Then they carry on writing things we like even less. If it's not legally actionable then what do you do?

Stop talking sense

 

[Kenward Garg]

What City would be showing is that FFP cannot achieve its declared aims. It is a ludicrous Alice in Wonderland style fantasy to suggest that the financial stability of a club can be improved by outlawing certain revenue streams and telling clubs that it isn't allowed some of its revenues from deals with non-related related parties. This is to take us into the realms of a curious dream world that tells us financially stable, very wealthy clubs are actually unstable because UEFA says so! Other clubs, whose debt is increasing every year, are models of financial prudence because UEFA decrees it. The FFP picture is a fiction and it has nothing to do with financial stability. If it aims at financial stability why is it called financial fair play? Why do UEFA raise no questions about Bayern's or Juve's genuinely related sponsorship deals worth far more than any we have? Why did Platini only ever talk about City's spending? Why did he admit to Martin Samuel that he gave in to constant pressure from the G 14 to introduce limits on owner investment because they couldn't compete with Abramovitch or Sheikh Mansour? FFP was introduced to protect the G 14 from competition. UEFA introduced FFP to benefit a handful of clubs not "the game" and it cannot discriminate against City in anyone's interests. "We have our rights."

Lovely analysis, dude.

 

[cheekybids]

That’s interesting. The Tory party in Liverpool at the time was associated with the ‘Protestant ascendancy’. This was like their allied Parties, the Unionists in Glasgow and the Ulster Unionists in Belfast. The campaign colours of the Liverpool Conservatives was Orange right through to the 1970s.

Everton were a catholic club which wasn’t popular with the Protestant Orange land owner who wanted rid. Not many from Ireland know this but if you ask a Rangers fan why they like Liverpool you’ll hear this.

we digress;)

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

In the NFL the highest earning team is the Dallas Cowboys, with revenue of $950m last year. The next is the Patriots with about $600m. In the PL that world lead to total dominance yet the Cowboys really haven't been that successful in recent years.

The bottom earning team have revenues of around $350m, which is just 60% of the Patriots revenue. The NFL has a number of ways of ensuring relative competitiveness but tying spending to revenue isn't I one of them or even the only one. If FFP was applied to the NFL, the Cowboys would win the Superbowl season after season.

That can’t be true mate. I mean, it’s not as if Juventus have just won 8 titles in a row, Olympiacos have won 10 out of 11, Munich 8 in a row, PSG 7 in 8, Barca or Madrid 14 out of 15, is it? It’s not as if CL money and clubs monetising everything has skewed football more than anything in history is it?
It’s also not as if the football in those countries is becoming so uncompetitive that the only solution they can see is to take the ‘European League’ no relegation option, that will die within 3 years of it being founded, either.
The CL and FFP has an awful lot to answer for and the fact that they are using to stop city should tell everyone all they need to know..

 

[Bodicoteblue]

A couple of very well made points however you are coming at this soley from the point of view of Man City. In the hypothetical scenario where Man City are challenging FFP in Switzerland or Brussels or wherever UEFA will say they legislate for hundreds of clubs across Europe, just because Man City are the exemption to the rule it doesn't mean the rule should be changed. They will say that legislation has worked and produce mountains of evidence to prove their point. Man City themselves are evidence of a club competing right at the very top of the game while operating within the FFP parameters for the last few years.

Based on where City are now I don't see them going down that route, I think it will end at CAS win lose or draw.

Bosman got the rule changed because the ‘rule’ was in contravention of the EU laws on freedom of movement.
That’s how you do it .. you challenge in the law courts and stand up to bullies, even if there’s only one of you and you appear to be ‘the exemption (sic) to the rules’

 

[BobbyBoy]

Other sports have spending caps or spending limits but in all cases these limits are the same for all participants. FFP differs from this because it ties spending to income - but limits equity investment- so teams have different spending limits. At a domestic level any team with regular CL football is in such a privileged position that other teams can simply never catch up - even if their owner wants to invest. FFP is wholly at odds with a football pyramid. I’d argue FFP is not a financial regulation to govern the wellbeing of the game. It’s clearly an instrument to protect a cartel - hence why it is so very different from anything introduced in other sports. If UEFA wanted to protect clubs it could simply have introduced a wage cap or set a ceiling on the debt to income ratio - but we all know why they didn’t do that- and that’s why FFP is probably not consistent with competition law - it’s specifically designed to limit not encourage competition.

I was replying to Prestwitch's analogy about a guy building a shopping centre, if that same owners wanted to buy a Rugby team or start a Formula One team he would face spending restrictions he would face while trying to develop his shopping centre. My point was sport is different to everyday business and I stand over that.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Excellent post as ever. You could say that FFP has played some part in increasing financial stability but what has done at least as much if not more than FFP is rising TV and commercial revenues. UEFA claim that net debt or that debt as a proportion of turnover has decreased but I've worked out that gross debt hasn't decreased to any noticeable degree.

Imagine the retail sector, with major store groups struggling on the high street and a couple of big ones failing. The Department for Business decides to step in and brings in legislation that means stores must break-even. An ambitious owner sees a chance to invest in their smaller, niche business and take over some of the prime locations vacated by the failed stores. It's a big step up for them and they'll need capital to do that. Rents will rise, as will wages and other overheads. They'll need to invest in stocks and as a consequence of this increased cost base the business will run at a loss for a while until it's established. But they're not allowed to do that.

Any attempt to defend that ludicrous position would be laughed out of court.

Agreed. One of my sons is involved in the space industry and there is great excitement around space tourism/privat space flights etc. The Americans are trying to unlock private capital by attracting investment from the billionaires of Amazon, Google etc and the Chinese aerospace industry is ploughing literally astronomical sums into research and development. Now, suppose the European Space Agency decides development must be "organic" and the agency must operate within last year's budget supplemented by ticket sales for spectators at launchings and sponsorship of future flights. Who do we think will make it into space first and who will carry the most passengers? Who will establish a regular passenger service first? The ESA will always break even...but which is likely to be sustainable? And which will go bust first?